The burden of proof: atheist bus ads

Nobody has to "prove God doesn't exist", because it's impossible to prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof falls on whoever makes a positive claim. http://emptv.com/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• proving
• existence
• of
• god
• burden
• proof
• disproof
• bus
• ads
• advertisements
• britain
• uk
• british
• humanist
• association
• humanism
• religion
• atheism
• christianity
• theology
• stephen
• green
• christian
• voice
• advertising
• standards
• authority
• code
• truthfulness
• and
• substantiation
• evidence
• argument
• debate
• russells
• teapot

[TrollAndStuff]

How dare you say the almighty mystical cupcake isn't real! His graceful frosting shall save your soul!

[eddiequest4]

@sPitternaut The closest thing there is to "hell" is Phoenix, AZ.

[hevy99]

i say Atheism should be labeled a disease and a sickness like Alcoholism. Has all the same characteristics of a disease. There should be twelve step groups for these suffering poor souls. +++

[Capricehamer]

omg bro u need to talk to my mom ive been trying to prove this to her most of my life

[miket1m]

4.

are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.

We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

[miket1m]

3.

statements. They form the basis of rational discourse. They are transcendent. They are not dependent on the material world. They are conceptual by nature. Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolute

[miket1m]

2.

articles regarding atheism, etc. Since the atheist is making a defense, he's defending a position. Can it be said that he is making a positive assertion? If not, why is he acting as though he is? That is the issue raised here.

Atheism is illogical and 100% intellectually indefensible, based on nothing but simple abstract possibility.

There is evidence for God. The Laws of Logic.

The Law of Identity

The Law of non Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

These laws are absolute truth

[miket1m]

1.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion. My argument is that atheism is a positive assertion. It is a position that atheists hold to and defend. This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a position is found in the fact that they defend it by attacking theistic arguments, attempting to refute

[TheHippo00100]

@eddiequest4 Hell Michigan, boom i win lol.

[CarlMinez]

ZJ is right to say that the definition of God does not allow for a scientific, logical debate based on arguments and reasoning. But neither is it supposed to be, and arguably, anyone who tries to prove or disprove God with the scientific method only shows his or her own misconception of what faith and religious is about.

[Clear404]

@mercury1321 Cont'd...my view is this: if you can get from sense-data to materialism, then atheism is clearly more reasonable than theism. However, if you cannot get to materialism, then theism is clearly more reasonable than atheism. I think materialism is false. It was roundly refuted in the 18th century. But it was an inconvenient truth and so it was ignored. That happens quite a lot.